There were many factual claims on both sides throughout the debate, but the Q/A portion really caught my attention. Especially the question that stated, “what, if anything at all would change your mind?” I think that this is where Ken really lost ground. By saying that nothing would ever change his mind about the Christian God being the one true God that created the universe, in my opinion was completely writing out the validity of all science. On the other hand Mr. Nye spouted numerous things that would change his mind instantly. The
Some people assume that he does not believe in miracles but he does not say this he just says you have to be careful about the difference between a ‘miracle’ and something extraordinary happening. Hume’s argument on miracles was written in his essay ‘Of Miracles’, he rated his argument very highly, claiming that it was an argument that “which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion and consequently, will be useful as long as the world endures.” To understand Hume’s argument against miracles we have to understand his definition as his argument is based on his understand of ‘miracles’ and his understanding of ‘the laws of nature’. He defines a miracle “as a transgression of the law of nature by a particular volition of the Deity, or by the interposition of some invisible agent.” Hume’s argument against the likelihood of miracles rests on his use of induction. This is explained in ‘The Question of God’ by Micheal Palmer, he explains that “It is…a fundamental principle of inductive reasoning that the more I see A followed but B, the greater is my expectation that A will be followed by B in the future. That I expect a rubber ball to bounce is dependent on my having seen the rubber ball bounce not once but many times.
J. Ayer claimed that to speak of a designed universe is meaningless. Unless we could say what the world would have been like without a designer, we cannot reach the conclusion that this world is designed. Who establishes that there is beneficial order in the universe? How do we argue from that to the conclusion that god has designed it? Swinburne counted this by claiming that the order in the universe does require an explanation.
Bill Maher does an excellent job in his film Religulous in correlating religion to irony and hypocrisy. He uses comedic analogies to keep the audience’s attention, but powerfully does so. His crude honesty really portrays the falsities plaguing religious beliefs today. I have always had loose confidence in all religious institutions. Bill Maher’s funny approach to the inconsistencies and irrational conceptions within religion truly reinforce my stance.
Another noteworthy individual is Albert Einstein who was a great physicist but viciously attacked for his beliefs and even had his life threatened for believing in God. On a professional level, he was ridiculed in published articles and attacked in public speeches. 4 One famous quote of Albert Einstein is, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.” While this paper is not focused on the history of each topic, it is significant to show how Christians were treated by the secular world. I believe the Christian response to Physics should follow suit to those great Christian predecessors in that the secular world cannot take away your achievements, knowledge or dignity for standing firm in the beliefs in which you base
Critics such as Dawkins and Russell say the universe is here today due to ‘brute fact’ whereas Swinburne would argue highly with that and say ‘God is simpler than anything we could imagine and gives an explanation for the system’. Incorporation Aristotle’s notion of a prime mover, Aquinas formulated his version of the cosmological or "first cause" argument. The first cause incorporates the theory that there must be a contingency/necessary being. According to this argument, the things which we see around us now are the products of a series of previous causes indicating a prime mover. But that series cannot go back in time forever.
There is a relatively strong connection to God in this book and many people during this time period believed in God. I bring this up because it was believed that God is the supreme creator of all things including the human race. It would therefore be horrendously inconceivable to challenge God and attempt to do something that would show that a mortal can have power equal to that of God. Next, regardless of how an individual comes into being it the duty of the creator to be there to nurture and care for the creature they have brought into the world. The world is a cruel place, even to those who are normal, but to someone who is different, as we see in the book, there
Earl Putz PHIL201-B06 October 17, 2011 In Response To McCloskey In February 1968, H. J. McCloskey published an article entitled “On Being an Atheist.” It is a work designed to show atheists exactly why they are what they are. As a piece of literature, it is well written and his points are articulated well. However, philosophy is not the opinions of one man or group, but an exchange of ideas that can help people come to a better understanding of their beliefs. McCloskey challenged everything I believe as a Christian, and did so in such a way as to appear that there should be no doubt that his argument is the correct one. As with all debates, however, there is more than one side, and I am going to present my arguments as rebuttals for McCloskey.
The big bang theory is the belief which describes the beginning of the universe as a large explosion that sent pieces of matter flying everywhere, which is ridiculously unlikely to have occurred naturally, so this argument says that a Creator had intended it to happen, or something similar to the big bang. The argument continues to say that the universe is so fine-tuned for human life to exist, and that there was an intelligent design behind the creation of the universe, making it highly unlikely for an event to naturally occur to create the universe. This argument is said to give proof that the Creators purpose in creating the universe was to also create life to go along with it. This argument is yet again, invalid. It is true that the chances of the big bang theory occurring are extremely miniscule, but it is still possible for it to
Without God, there can be no absolutes or enforced morality. Furthermore, the cosmological argument asserts that because this universe has a beginning, it must have been created by something greater. Finally, when looking at the universe, we are forced to logically conclude that a God was behind the creation due to the deliberate way in which it is obviously set up in order to sustain human life. These principles show that Atheism, while given the appearance of science and discovery, fails to address the major questions that the theology of a creator God more than